Eat, Pray, Love: Is Julia Roberts Grendel?

So I just finished watching the movie Eat, Pray, Love for the first time (no literally......like five minutes ago) and I'm happy to say that I believe I've found a new favorite movie, or really a new favorite story that clearly highlights a person's transition from innocence to experience. If I was to watch the movie as a basic viewer, I would've gawked at the beautiful scenery, array of languages, and overall world experience Julia Robert's character engaged into. However, being the AP Lit student that I am *hair flip* I couldn't help but watch the movie through a lens that connected the numerous transition periods that occur throughout the movie to a much deeper meaning, or a novel that goes by the name of Grendel. At the beginning of this movie, Julia Robert's appears as if she is stuck in a stage that is caught in between innocence and experience; she's experienced numerous downfalls in her life that have led to her becoming dreary and lost in her own world, while at the same time is so vulnerable to her emotions that she acts frantically and decides to embark on a year long journey the hopes of finding herself. To me this was all too similar to Grendel; sure, when the novel starts off Grendel isn't as experienced as Julia Robert's character is, however, once he gains experience and knowledge of the truth of the reality of the world that’s around him, it's as if he becomes vulnerable to everything that could possibly influence his decisions, actions, and emotions. That's exactly what goes on in this movie: experience drives the main character into a state of innocence. She's lost, vulnerable, and unable to make decisions for herself in order to find what's best in the end all due to the fact that the knowledge she has gained about the world around her has led to her crashing all together. All of this leads to the question of why? Is too much experience actually the problem? Should people hold onto their state of innocence for as long as they can? Or were the downfalls these characters experienced as a result to the over abundance of experience they gained throughout their lifetimes just a coincidence? Think about it, before Grendel became experienced he was happy and hopeful, which is similar to how Julia Robert's character was after she took herself out of her overly experienced situation in an attempt to empty her mind and start all over, almost as if she was trying to revert back to a period in her life where the knowledge of the harsh realities of the world wasn't something she was burdened with. Is experience a bad thing? According to the stories of these two characters the answer would appear to be yes; experience broke them down to a point of no return, to a point where they craved for the days or feelings they once had when they were naïve and blind. The stories of these two characters makes me wonder, is the shift from innocence to experience simply a cycle? Are we supposed to blossom from an innocent state to an experienced state only to empty our minds of heavy amounts of knowledge to become innocent again? Is that balance needed? Who knows. What’s seen in these stories makes one believe that experience isn’t the best thing for one in life, and that living in a state where one is filled with young hope and untainted realities is what’s best for everyone. But then again, little experience could lead to problems in the end. So which is better: being innocent or being experienced? Maybe one day the universe will figure it out. Ya feel me?

I, Too.

So, when I first found out "blogging" was a part of AP lit one could say I was.........mortified. Yep, that's right. MORTIFIED. What would I blog about? Would I ever be creative enough to come up with anything insightful to say? Most importantly, would I ever be able to focus on one of these for more than around five minutes (focusing on the computer is not something I'd say I'm the best at.....once night fall hits my attention falls entirely on Netflix/Pinterest)? At first I was completely defeated (kind of dramatic, I know) but after the days went on, and the blogs continued I realized these are actually kind of entertaining once you sit down and just start typing (I actually feel like a crazy person doing these because I'm basically having a well thought out conversation with myself......it is what it is). Anyways, it's safe to say that blogging turned out to actually be ok, and one thing I didn't realize I'd actually enjoy about blogging was blogging about poems. Before this, I barely knew anything about poetry, let alone could I name anyone besides Robert Frost or Dr. Seuss. But as the months have gone by, and the poem blogs have continued, I've realized that I've actually found a particular interest in poetry; I can even now say that I might actually have a favorite poet (Langston Hughes, probably). Poetry isn't as bland as I thought it was going to be, and once one finds a certain genre of poetry that they particularly like, it's almost as if one is simply reading a relatable/interesting/song like story. On that note, one thing I believe I really tend to enjoy about Langston Hughe's poetry is the fact that the way his words are layed out truly allows one to create a perfect scenario of the story he's telling in their heads. The language may not be extremely deep or profound, however, his simple placement of common words really gets the job done and evokes emotions from readers (that's just my opinion). So, while roaming the internet for another poem to blog about, I happened to come across one titled "I, Too" by none other than Langston Hughes; the poem goes like this:

I, too, sing America.

I am the darker brother.

They send me to eat in the kitchen

When company comes,

But I laugh,

And eat well,

And grow strong.

Tomorrow,

I'll be at the table,

When company comes.

Nobody'll dare

Say to me,

"Eat in the kitchen",

Then.

Besides,

They'll see how beautiful I am,

And be ashamed-

I, too, am America.

The first stanza in this poem represents the reality of what's going on during this time period. The speaker states that "I, too, sing America/ I am the darker brother" as a way of making it clear to those around him that he is also an American; America is his home, his place where he can prosper, where is pride is, and the speaker feels that just because he's the "darker brother" doesn’t mean that he's so much different from anyone other American. The first stanza finishes off with the speaker stating that "They send me to eat in the kitchen/When company comes/But I laugh/And eat well/ And grow strong" as a way that allows the reader to know that the narrator is highly aware of his position in society; the speaker knows that he cannot be seen "when company comes" due to him more than likely being some form of house help, yet, he finds it to be unfair because he "eats well and grows strong" just like others around him. He is no different than his fellow peers as a whole, yet, cannot participate in events equally simply due to the color of his skin. The second stanza of this poem appears to represent the fantasy the speaker hopes will come true; the first line simply saying "tomorrow" goes far beyond the day after the current day, seeing how tomorrow can mean "at some future time". At some future time, the speaker imagines he'll finally be able to "be at the table/ When company comes" as if it's completely normal while he is no longer looked down upon and forced to eat in the kitchen alone. As the lines go on, the narrator expresses that those around him will become ashamed of themselves once they "see how beautiful [he is]"; the narrator simply wants his companions to realize his beauty on the inside for who he is instead of on the outside which simply dictates his skin tone. He is aware that he doesn’t deserve such treatment and hopes for a better day when everyone becomes ashamed for how they've looked down upon him when he knows that he "too, am America". Ya feel me?



Hamlet: First Impression

We've finally arrived at the time during the year in which we must engage into the readings of ole ancient Shakespeare. Yawn.....or at least that's what I thought the story of Hamlet was going to be before we actually started getting into what was going on (along with deciphering every line of every paragraph.....help us out Shakespeare). Like other pieces of Shakespeare’s work that I've read (Romeo and Juliet, A Mid Summer's Night's Dream, Macbeth), the language of the text makes one feel as if there is absolutely nothing interesting going on within these classic tales, however, once one takes the time to break down what is said and interpret the stories for themselves, the enjoyment that comes along with these tales finally can finally arrive. I was completely surprised when I not only realized how interesting Hamlet really was but also when I was able to personally draw similarities from Hamlet to other stories that I've read in the past. In a way, the story of Prince Hamlet reminds me of that of Harry Potter; sure, Hamlet isn't a British orphan who has recently discovered that he's this almighty sorcerer, however, the themes and situations that have occurred within the first act have led to me believing that subtle hints have already been placed to allow readers to know what exactly might occur as the story goes on. During Hamlet's encounter with his father's ghost, I couldn't help but feel as if the ghost of King Hamlet was speaking to his son in what sounded similar to that of "parseltongue"(as seen in the video). His father's words were very serpent-like, seeing how they left a certain taste in the air after they were spoken. The tone of the man's voice was similar to that of Lord Voldemort's whenever he would attempt to incept Harry Potter's thoughts like the snake he was, which left me wondering if this ghost was here for good reasons or for bad ones. Hamlet's past belief that his father was "so excellent a king, that was to this Hyperion...."(act one, lines 141-142) is leading him to completely feed into what this questionable ghost is saying to him instead of recognizing the facts that though this being may appear to be his father, its intentions may be far different than what his father's would have been. The text states that the ghost "speaks from underneath", and "died unaneiled" which means that it not only was uncleansed of its sins before it left the earth but also is rising from some hell like state rather than one from heaven; Hamlet prides himself in being a moral judge, almost as if it's his duty, yet is failing to truly analyze what is happening right before him just for the sake of the ghost appearing to be his father. The "parseltongue" like conversation the ghost has with Hamlet also relates to Harry Potter in such a way that it's almost used as a form of manipulation, or mind control. When Voldemort would use his serpent like voice to penetrate Harry Potter's mind he would plant seeds of thought that would occasionally leave Harry feeling as if he needed to prove something or forget his moral judgment all together. In my opinion, that is exactly what is happening between Hamlet and this ghost. The ghost says "list, list, o list! If thoudidst ever love thy dear father"(page 31) as a way of guilt tripping Hamlet into instantly feeling like his emotions towards his father weren’t pure if he doesn’t agree to do what the ghost is saying, while also stating "I find thee apt; and duller shouldst thou be than the fat weed" (page 31) as a way of making him feel unworthy of his father's past approval if he fails the with the task at hand. The manipulation, serepent-esque way of thinking, and rising from underneath all related to Harry Potter, in my opinion, which leads to me believing that this ghost is simply something that will lead to Hamlet's doom; however, the things that were said could've been some true form of motivation so that Hamlet could finally feel as if he had his father's approval to make things right. Which is it? Is the ghost good or bad? Will the “parseltongue” continue? Who knows. As Hamlet's adventure goes on, only time will tell. Ya feel me?

Invisible Man: First Impression

Ok, so Invisible Man is......weird. The novel itself is quite interesting, however, the dialogue makes the comprehension of some parts of the novel almost unbearable. When I first started reading this, I expected the book to be similar to the Warmth of Other Suns; a nicely written novel that evoked emotions of empathy towards the main character of the novel due to the unfortunate time period he was born into. The novel has similar themes, and the actual story itself makes one feel empathy for the characters in this novel after seeing the situations they've been forced into (the fight scene in chapter one reminded me on the Mandingo fighting from Django Unchained.....just the thought of it was making my skin itch. SO VIOLENT), however, the set up of the novel is, well, driving me crazy. A main problem with this book is the rambling stories the characters seem to engage in; similar to A Catcher in the Rye, the characters, in my opinion, go off into rants that actually take away from the meaning of what they're saying. It's ridiculous. I find myself actually becoming interested in the stories, yet, after around a page or so of reading I'm confused to the point where my head actually starts hurting (someone save me). For instance, Jim Trueblood’s long (and at times off topic) explanation of his life story/ current situation started off really interesting; when he tells Mr. Norton that "it was cold so all of us had to sleep together; me, the ole lady, and the gal" (page 53) I was suddenly hooked! The story seemed as if it was going to be scandalous or none the less leave some sort of an emotional impact, which it did in a way, however, when he starts mentioning waking up from dreams and his daughter reaching for him as if she is comforted by him in a fathering way after he previously stating that she "wants to tease and please a man" (page 56), I couldn't help but find myself suddenly lost and full of questions. Was his situation actually a dream? Why would his wife attempt to shoot him with a gun if the vivid situation he was describing was actually a figment of his imagination? Is Jim Trueblood a child molester or no? So many questions, so little answers!! At times, I've began to wonder if the ramble like dialogue was something that was done on purpose; Ralph Ellison more than likely knew what he was doing when he created pages filled with the dialogue of one person, right? Maybe Jim Trueblood's rant was something needed to help highlight just how "invisible" the main character truly is? Mr. Norton does "wave his hand in annoyance" (page 61) when the narrator attempts to even interrupt the very "visible" Jim Trueblood while he’s speaking....was that just by coincidence? Or is there a deeper meaning? Who knows. As the novel continues, I’m excited to see just how the narrator being invisible affects him in life, while at the same time hopefully discovering some sort of secret message in all of the ramble-esuqe rants these characters just love. Ya feel me?